" 88 percent of 53 landmark studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means the the conclusions are patently false.

C Glenn Begley, a former head of global cancer research at drug giant Amgen and author of the review was unable to replicate the findings of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. It appears that researchers are simply fabricating findings that will garner attention rather then publishing what they actually discover, which helps them to maintain a steady stream of grant funding but deceives the public"Jonathan Benson, Natural News

greentara wrote:" 88 percent of 53 landmark studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means the the conclusions are patently false.

C Glenn Begley, a former head of global cancer research at drug giant Amgen and author of the review was unable to replicate the findings of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. It appears that researchers are simply fabricating findings that will garner attention rather then publishing what they actually discover, which helps them to maintain a steady stream of grant funding but deceives the public"Jonathan Benson, Natural News

There is of course another glaring logical fallacy. No cure for any cancer was found by an absence of research. And cancers are increasingly curable. This has not come about by intuition or ' alternative ' medicine.

Other scientists worry that something less innocuous explains the lack of reproducibility.

Part way through his project to reproduce promising studies, Begley met for breakfast at a cancer conference with the lead scientist of one of the problematic studies.

"We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure," said Begley. "I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they'd done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It's very disillusioning."

Such selective publication is just one reason the scientific literature is peppered with incorrect results.

For one thing, basic science studies are rarely "blinded" the way clinical trials are. That is, researchers know which cell line or mouse got a treatment or had cancer. That can be a problem when data are subject to interpretation, as a researcher who is intellectually invested in a theory is more likely to interpret ambiguous evidence in its favor.

Through Dzogchen we can really understand what God is and we don’t have to worry if there is a God or not. God always exists as our real nature, the base, for everybody. - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

So much for the materialist fanatics of scientism's idea that "peer reviewed journals" are nearly infallible.

Like I've been saying, how many of these guys are on the corporatocracy's/big pharma's payroll i.e. they wouldn't dare go against their corporatist-thug boss's orders very much for fear of losing that paycheck signed by the international bankers and their henchmen.

Lhug-Pa wrote:By the way, I'm not saying that peer reviewed journals have no value.

What I'm saying is that here we can see that they're not as independent as is thought by a large percentage of their advocates.

That's a much more reasonable position - thanks. Peer review is a bit like democracy: not terrifically good but a lot better than the next best alternative.

Kim

Precisely.A flawed process carries out by fallible human beings that has resulted in significant understanding of, and sometimes cure of, a whole range of conditions which were incurable just 20 short years ago.There are literally millions world-wide with cause to be grateful for all of the advances in the sphere of medicine, surgery, and applied psychology.The idea of reverting to the use of responses based on medieval superstitions in the face of Hodgkins Disease, testicular cancer, smallpox, A.I.D.S, kidney failure, phobias, obsessional states, polio, malaria, yellow fever, leprosy, etc etc etc does not bear thinking about.There is nothing 'Buddhist' in advocating a wilful turning away from significant reductions in the suffering brought about by a whole range of conditions in order to maintain an anachronistic and neophobic ideology.